Hybrid control surgical robotic system

ABSTRACT

The present disclosure describes a method and system for performing robot-assisted surgical procedures. The system includes a robotic arm system assembly, an end effector assembly, and a hybrid control mechanism for robotic surgery. The robotic arm is a lightweight, bedside robot with a large range of motion, which can be easily manipulated to position endoscope and surgical instruments. The control console is mounted at the distal end of the robotic arm to enable robotic arm to follow operators arm movement, provide physical support, filter out hand tremor, and constrain motion. A universal adapter is also described as an interface to connect traditional laparoscopic tools to the robotic arm.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Field of Invention

The present disclosure is related to the field of robot-assistedsurgery.

Description of the Related Art

Robotic surgical systems are useful in minimally invasive surgery byenhancing the vision and dexterity of the surgeon. The Da Vinci fromIntuitive Surgical is the only commercial robot for soft-tissue surgeryon the market today. The Da Vinci system has advanced the field ofsurgery by providing a less invasive alternative to open procedures(i.e. prostatectomy or hysterectomy) by enabling the surgeon to accessand manipulate in difficult to reach anatomical regions, such as deep inthe pelvis or the retroperitoneum. Today, over 90% of Da Vinci cases aregenitourinary procedures performed in the in the pelvic cavity, such asprostatectomy, hysterectomy, cystectomy, pyeloplasty, sacrocolpopexy,myomectomy, and endometriosis resection. In 2011, there were 360,000procedures done with the Da Vinci system, among which prostatectomy andhysterectomy account for 75% of these procedures [Intuitive SurgicalInc. Annual Report 2012].

Da Vinci's key value proposition is that it enablesUrologist/Gynecologist to access hard to reach deep and tight pelvicspaces in order to perform laparoscopic surgeries with enhanced 3Dvisualization and improved dexterity, which would otherwise betechnically very challenging using a traditional laparoscopic approach.It is best suited for operation in a relatively small field and forprecision dissection in a confined volume, but it is not suitable forlarger interventions, such as mobilization of the colon, because thesetypes of procedures usually require wide ranges of motion. Previousstudies showed that intuitive controls of robotic systems are morecomparable to the motions performed by a surgeon during open surgery andcan shorten the procedure learning curve, even in the hands ofrelatively inexperienced laparoscopic surgeons. Ahlering et al.demonstrated a similar finding in urological surgery, where a roboticinterface allowed a surgeon with limited laparoscopic familiarity toperform minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, with resultscomparable to those of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon, aftercompleting only twelve cases [Ahlering, et al. J Urol 2003].

Despite the utility of Da Vinci in pelvic surgeries, the technology inits current form is not suited for general surgery, especiallycolorectal resection during which multiple quadrants of the abdomen aretraversed and the surgeon must often adjust or tilt the patient andoperating table to achieve better access to target tissues. In order toeffectively use robotics in procedures such as this, physicians wouldneed to greatly modify their technique or dock and undock the robot inthe middle of the procedure, which can significantly increase operatingtimes and possibly increase the risk of harming the patient. Forinstance, a total robotically performed sigmoid colectomy requiresundocking the robot from the upper abdominal ports, repositioning thepatient, moving the robot and re-docking to the lower abdominal ports.An action that usually takes a couple of seconds in conventionallaparoscopy has become a cumbersome 10 minute or more exercise performedby specialized assistants.

A further shortcoming of current robotic systems is their largefootprint on both master and slave sides, which can impede access to thepatient lying on the operating table, and also poses a significantchallenge for proper patient positioning and port placement. Even smalldeviations in port placement could result in collision of the roboticarms or failure to reach the intended target area. It also lacks hapticfeedback (tactile and force feedback), making it unsuitable for surgicalanastomosis as these require water-tight and tension-free suturing tomitigate the chance of anastomosis breakdown post-operatively. Accordingto our survey of surgeons, there is very limited application for DaVinci in colorectal surgery, even with its recently approved Endo WristStapler. There might be a very small niche for it, such as loweranterior rectal resection deep in the pelvis and anastomosis can beaccomplished by using a trans-anal circular stapler.

Traditional minimally invasive colorectal surgeries include thefollowing stages: (1) Careful dissection to provide adequate hemostasisand obtain access to the target tissue; (2) Repair (as in treatment of aperforation) or bypass/removal of a lesion (as in colorectal cancer);(3) Anastomosis of the remaining ends of bowel; (4) Irrigation of theabdominal and pelvic cavities if indicated; and (5) Appropriate closureof the fascia and skin. Each of these basic stages has very differentdesign requirements when utilizing a robotic system. In the explorationstage, the ideal system would provide a wide range of motion foridentifying the target tissue and for optimal use of surgical tools. Thesecond and third stages typically require a long operating time, and puta great amount of physical strain on the surgeon. A system that enhancessurgeon's dexterity as well as providing arm support is needed.

In summary, current robotic system enable the surgeons in somedisciplines to perform MIS (Minimally Invasive Surgery) proceduresotherwise difficult to do. However, a more flexible, modular,intelligent robotic functionality is needed to facilitate the use ofrobotically assisted MIS in the general surgery field. There is a clearclinical need for a system that not only lowers the technical barriersfor performing MIS procedures, but also improves surgical outcome andefficiency.

Several previous patents describe devices meant to aid the surgeon byconstraining motions and providing support. U.S. Pat. No. 5,397,323,entitled “Remote center-of-motion robot for surgery,” and U.S.Publication 2009/0240259, entitled “System and methods for controllingsurgical tool elements,” both describe systems that would limit themovement of a tool with a remote degree of freedom and allow for roboticmaster-slave control.

U.S. Publication 2007/0250078, entitled “Surgical manipulator,”describes a device that can position a surgical tool and provide hapticfeedback.

U.S. Publication 2012/0283747, entitled “Human-robot shared control forendoscopic assistant robot,” describes a robotic-arm positioning systemthat can support an endoscope that can be operated with preloadedprocedures or manually with varying stiffness.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,239,784, entitled “Exo-skeletal haptic computerhuman/computer interface device,” describes a hand-mounted exoskeletonglove-like haptic interface that can be used to interact with computers.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,229, entitled “Force-feedback interface device forthe hand,” describes a similar haptic glove-like interface that can bemounted in different ways and be used to manipulate both virtual andphysical objects.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,954,692, entitled “Endoscopic robotic surgical tools andmethods,” describes a wearable encoder/robotic interface that allowsdirect control of surgical instruments.

U.S. Pat. No. 8,188,843, entitled “Haptic device gravity compensation,”describes a haptic input device with gravity compensation.

U.S. Pat. No. 8,332,072, entitled “Robotic Hand Controller,” describes arobotic hand controller with 8 degrees of freedom with force feedback.

U.S. Publication 2008/0009771, entitled “Exosceleton,” describes awearable structure with links and joints corresponding to the humanbody. Transducers on the structure allow for exchange of motion andinformation between structure and user, and enable control of movementof the structure.

EP 0774329A, entitled “Telerobotic laparoscopic manipulator,” describesa manipulatable hand for use in laparoscopic surgery having a controlledhand remote from the operator, and having at least one controlledfinger.

U.S. Pat. No. 7,813,784, entitled “Interactive computer-assisted surgerysystem and method,” describes a method and system for providing computerassistance for performing a medical procedure.

U.S. Pat. No. 7,747,311, entitled “System and method for interactivehaptic positioning of a medical device,” describes a combination of ahaptic device and a computer-assisted system for interactive hapticpositioning. The entire disclosure of each of the above references ishereby incorporated by reference into this specification.

However, none of the above references involve utilizing features of thepresent disclosure to perform robot-assisted surgery with the roboticarm and end-effector tethered to the operator's arm. None have describeda control console positioned on the robotic arm nor a universal adapterthat mechanizes endoscopic tools. Furthermore, none of the abovereferences describe a system that allows easy exchange between thedifferent operation modes: manual, master-slave, and autonomous.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

As outlined above, there is need for a flexible and modular system inorder to integrate robotic-assistive system into standard surgicalpractice. The present disclosure addresses the workflow and ergonomicchallenges of the existing robotic surgery system by incorporatingintelligent robots as an exoskeleton extension of surgeon's arm/hand.With the surgeon, robot, and control console integrated together in thesurgical field, the surgeon may be provided with more control andawareness of the operating environment, may be able to performprocedures following a nature workflow, may encounter enhancedvisualization, accuracy, and dexterity by using robotic tools, mayexperience less physical strain, and may improve the efficiency andsafety of surgery by automating tasks with robotic assistance.

The workspace of the present disclosure is easily adjustable toaccommodate surgeries that require large work areas, but its movementcan also be constrained on command as needed (e.g. remote center ofmotion, “wrist” motion only, axial constraints). When prompted by thesurgeon, the robot may take advantage of sensors in the system toautonomously perform various surgical tasks that would benefit fromincreased dexterity and speed, such as anastomosis. At the surgeon'sdiscretion, the automated procedure may be stopped, at which point thesurgeon may take over by manipulating the robot using master-slavecontrol.

In manual/master-slave mode of operation, the surgeon may utilize acontroller that either mimics the handle of a traditional laparoscopictool or may utilize a glove-like interface that links the movements ofthe hand to the tool. The controller may be at bedside or be attached tothe robot itself, and using various feedback and control techniques suchas haptic feedback and gravity compensation, the robot/controller mayreproduce the feel of performing a manual laparoscopic surgery. Therobot may also enhance manual control of the tool by supporting theweight of the instrument and the surgeon's arm, removing tremors,providing strict motion constraints, etc. The surgeon is able to quicklyswitch between this manual mode and the previously describe automatedmode in order to improve surgical performance.

The features of the present disclosure may allow the surgeon to improvesurgical performance by utilizing optimized, automated robotic surgicalprocedures when appropriate, and by switching quickly to a master-slavecontrol that enhances the surgeon's manual capabilities when necessary.The disclosed embodiments of the device may include a robotic arm withexchangeable tools that the robot interfaces through a universaladapter. The tool may be a standard laparoscopic tool, amodified/motorized tool, and/or a highly specialized tool meant forspecific procedures. For interfacing a traditional laparoscopic tool,the robot may come with an attachment that utilizes the universaladapter and is able to produce the motions needed to actuate mostlaparoscopic tools (e.g. gripping the handle).

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The characteristics and advantages of exemplary embodiments are set outin more detail in the following description, made with reference to theaccompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 shows an example of a surgical area setup where a surgeon mayperform collaborative surgery using a universal tool adapter for hybridtechniques.

FIG. 2 shows examples of available modes of operations.

FIG. 3 shows an example of a general workflow for a master-slave mode ofoperation.

FIGS. 4A-4C show exemplary sets of constraints for a master-slave modeof operation.

FIG. 5 shows an example of a general workflow for autonomous mode ofoperation.

FIG. 6 shows an exemplary embodiment where the controller is attached toa robot.

FIG. 7 shows an exemplary embodiment where the controller is detachedfrom a robot.

FIG. 8 shows exemplary controller shapes.

FIGS. 9A and 9B show examples of a robotic support for a surgeon.

FIGS. 10A and 10B an example of collaborative actions between a robotand a surgeon where a surgeon may define a volumetric no-fly zone and/ora task-specific no-fly zone.

FIGS. 10C and 10D show an example of collaborative actions between arobot and a surgeon where a surgeon may define a planned incision line.

FIGS. 10E and 10F show an example of collaborative actions between arobot and a surgeon where a surgeon may define a planned position or aplanned force vector.

FIG. 11 shows an example of a universal tool port on a robot.

FIG. 12 shows examples of tools that may be attached to a robot.

FIGS. 13-15 show an embodiment of the present disclosure as a universaltool adapter.

FIG. 16 shows an example of a universal tool adapter for modular tools.

FIG. 17 shows an example of a modular multi degree of freedom tool.

FIG. 18 shows an example of a modular hand tool with an end effectordisengaged from the handle.

FIG. 19 shows an example of an end effector being installed onto theuniversal tool adapter.

FIG. 20 shows an example of the universal tool adapter including a motorpack interface.

FIG. 21 shows an example of a modular end effector that may bearticulated via a motor of the motor pack.

FIG. 22 shows an example of a multi axis motor pack being mounted to theuniversal tool adapter.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Objects, advantages, and features of the exemplary hybrid controlsurgical robotic system described herein with be apparent to one skilledin the art from a consideration of this specification, including theattached drawings.

FIG. 1 represents one exemplary surgical area setup. In one embodiment,a robot (100) may be mounted near the operating bed (101), so that thesurgeon (102) may switch between manual operation and robotic operationwithout leaving the bedside. The surgeon may use the robot (100) withone hand via a universal tool adapter (110), and a manual tool (103) inthe other, or he may use two or more robots. In one embodiment, themanual tool (103) may be a laparoscopic tool.

In one embodiment, FIG. 2 shows exemplary modes of operation availablewhen utilizing this system: manual (200), fine motion master-slave(201), gross motion master-slave (202), and autonomous (203). Thesurgeon may opt to utilize any one of these modes and may switch betweenthem as appropriate.

In one embodiment, a general workflow for fine and gross master-slavemode of operation is shown in FIG. 3. In this mode, the surgeon (300)may interact with the controller (301) to control the surgical robot(302). The surgeon's inputs (303) into the controller may then beprocessed via a control unit (310), a robot processor and/or a computerto generate an output for the robot, including: input processing (304)(e.g. tremor filtering, motion scaling), physical support (305) (e.g.tool gravity compensation, arm weight support), and movementrestrictions (306) (e.g. no-fly zones, remote center of motion). The setof processing methods to apply may be customized to each surgeon, or maybe changed on the fly. For example, if the surgeon would like to movethe robot from one minimally invasive surgery port to another, thesurgeon would pull out the robot with the current remote center ofmotion restriction in place. Once the robot is removed, the surgeonwould remove the constraint before moving it to the other port, and thenimpose a new remote center of motion constrain on the robot. As thesurgeon uses the robot to perform surgery on the patient (307), both thesurgeon and the robot may receive sensory feedback (308) through one ormore sensors (309).

In one embodiment, the control unit (310) may process input and/oroperating conditions of at least one robot arm of the surgical robot(302) in order to operate the at least one robot arm. The control unit(310) may execute commands to the at least one robot arm to share aworkspace and surgical elements, which will be described further below.The surgical elements may include at least one of a manual surgicaltool, a robotic surgical tool, an electrocautery tool, and a display ofthe workspace. In one embodiment, the surgeon's inputs (303), or surgeoninteraction inputs, may be detected via sensors of the at least onerobot arm of the surgical robot (302) and/or an input controller. Thesensors may include a force sensor and/or a position sensor coupled tothe at least one robot arm and may be used to detect a surgeon's input.Based on surgeon interaction inputs, the surgical robot (302) mayoperate on a fully automated mode or a partially automated mode. In oneembodiment, automated operation during the fully automated mode orpartially automated mode may be interrupted or adjusted due tosubsequent surgeon interaction inputs. In one embodiment, the controlunit (310) may include a central processing unit (CPU) and/or circuitryto execute commands to operate the robot based on received inputs fromone or more of sensors, surgeon interaction inputs, and an operatingprogram of the surgical robot (302).

FIGS. 4A-4C show example sets of motion constraints in master-slavemode. FIG. 4A shows gross-motion mode without any constraints, which mayallow the robot to move to any location in the surgical area (400). Oncea port has been established in the patient, the robot may move toanother set of constraints shown in FIG. 4B, which may include a remotecenter of motion (401) and a safe-working boundary (402). If necessary,the surgeon can opt to switch to using the fine-motor control, whichfurther constrains (403) the motion of the robot as shown in FIG. 4C.

In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 5, an example of a general workflowfor the supervised autonomous mode of operation is provided. In thismode, the surgeon (500) may supervise (501) the robot (502) as the robotmotions are automatically generated (503) based on sensory information(504) and restrictions (505) in order to autonomously perform a surgicalprocedure.

In one embodiment, the surgeon may begin surgery without the robot inmanual mode, using manual surgical tools to perform the tasks that hecan. Once the surgeon becomes fatigued or reaches a point where use ofthe robot would be more effective, he may bring the robot into thesurgical field using the gross motion master-slave control mode. Fromhere, the robot can be switched between gross and fine motion control,depending on the situation. If the surgeon needs to perform an operationthat requires high dexterity in a small work area, then he may employthe fine motor control. If the surgeon needs to make large motions, orneeds to move to another work area, then he may employ the gross motorcontrol. If the robot is programmed to do so, the surgeon may also setthe robot to perform autonomous tasks, especially those tasks thatrequire high dexterity and repetition such as anastomoses. At any timeduring the autonomous routine, the surgeon may interrupt the robot andtake over in one of the two master-slave control configurations. Oncethe surgeon determines that the robot is no longer needed, he may pullthe robot away from the surgical field and return to operating manually.

In one embodiment, the surgeon may interface with the robot through acontroller that allows him to control the base robot's motions, thetool's orientation, and any degrees of freedom the tool may have. FIG. 6shows an embodiment of the system where the master-slave controller(600) is attached to the robot (601), allowing the surgeon to feel thathe is directly controlling the tools with the robot acting as a support.FIG. 7 shows an embodiment of the system where the master-slavecontroller (700) is detached from the robot (701), allowing the surgeonto control the robot more ergonomically and allowing for motion scalingbetween the controller and the robot output. In another embodiment, thesurgeon may attach and detach the controller through the course of thesurgery (e.g. attached for gross-motion master-slave control anddetached for fine-motion master-slave control). FIG. 8 shows examples ofcontroller shapes that can be used to control a wide range of tools. Thecontroller shapes may include: a grip lever (800), a wearable glovecontroller (801), and a tool handle (802). In one embodiment, acontroller may be detachably attached to an end of the robot, as shownin FIG. 6. In one embodiment, the controller is configured to quicklyattach to or detach from the end of the robot.

In one embodiment, a kinematic model of a surgeon's arm may be produced.An arm pose may also be produced based on the robot end-effector'sposition in view of the kinematic model. The kinematic model and the armpose may be provided to a robotic surgical system to determine an amountof gravity compensation required for the surgeon's arm at different worklocations. The amount of gravity compensation, in the form of a dynamicforce from the robot, applied against the surgeon's arm may besufficient to support the arm to reduce fatigue. In one embodiment, thegravity compensation may enable the robot to assert a counter forceagainst the surgeon's arm such that the arm feels substantiallyweightless without hindering the surgeon's intended movements. In oneembodiment, the gravity compensation may enable the robot to assert acounter force against the surgeon's arm and/or attached surgical tool.The forces applied by the surgeon's arm or the attached surgical toolmay include at least gravitational forces asserted by the arm or tool,respectively.

In one embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B, a surgeon (901) with hisarm attached to a 6 degrees of freedom robot arm (902) using their hand,wrist, or forearm. To begin calibration, a surgeon may move their armbetween at least two positions and the robot records these positionswith one or more encoded joints (903) of the robot arm (902). A forcesensor (905) may be provided within or on the robot arm (902) to detecta force applied by the arm of the surgeon (901) as it moves between theat least two positions. In one embodiment, the surgeon may calibrate therobot by moving their arm within an area defining a workspace of thesurgeon. In one embodiment, the surgeon may signal to the robot when aboundary or an edge of the workspace has been reached. The surgeon may,for example, signal to the robot by issuing a voice command, depressinga button, toggling a switch, perform a predefined hand or arm gesture,depressing a foot pedal, etc. This signaling will define a virtualboundary for the robot in robot space.

After this calibration, the robot may compute and define a kinematicmodel of the surgeon arm. Subsequently, the robot end-effector (904)position may be translated into the arm pose. The arm pose will inform agravity compensation mode where the surgeons arm will be supported atone or more locations by an amount of force which is appropriate forthat arm pose. For example, an extended arm requires more support thanan arm held close to the chest. In one embodiment, the one or moresupport locations may include the wrist, forearm, elbow, shoulder, orothers.

In one embodiment, the robot may include a control unit, which mayinclude a processor, main memory, and random access memory for storingand executing operating modes, and for defining and storing calibrationparameters. For example, after calibration and other parameterdefinitions, the robot would not need to be recalibrated for aparticular surgeon and operation.

FIGS. 10A-10F show tasks which involve the collaboration between therobot and surgeon. For example, collaborative procedures may includedefining no-fly zones, tissue grasping, tissue cutting, tissuedissection, tissue joining, and/or tissue retraction. In one embodiment,an operator or surgeon may provide inputs, instructions, or commands tothe robot by moving their hand, wrist, or forearm. In one embodiment,the robot may detect movements or force of the operator or surgeon viaforce and/or position sensors of the robot arm. In one embodiment, theoperator or surgeon input may be in the form of a surgeon interactioninput via a controller. In one embodiment, the control unit may executea command to provide haptic feedback in response to the surgeoninteraction input from the controller and/or in response to an input oroperating condition detected by at least one sensor of the robot.

In one embodiment as shown in FIGS. 10A and 10B, a surgeon may define avolumetric no-fly zone (1015) and/or a task-specific no-fly zone (1016).As shown in FIGS. 10A and 10B, the tissue (1005) is in two segments, anda boundary (1013) is drawn by tracing a surgeon's tool (1002) on oraround a surgical area, or by signaling to the robot, to define ageneral volumetric no-fly zone (1015). This volumetric no-fly zone(1015) may be enforced by the robot to prevent the tool (1002) fromentering the region. The surgeon's tool (1002) may define edges (1014)of a task-specific no-fly zone (1016) by tracing or by signaling to therobot. The task-specific no-fly zone (1016) may be enforced by the robotduring operation. In one embodiment as shown in FIGS. 10A and 10B, atask-specific no-fly zone (1016) may be enforced during a tissuegrasping procedure. In one embodiment, a controller may be directly orindirectly connected to the tool (1002). The controller may receivesurgeon interaction inputs, including tracing performed via the tool(1002) or signaling, which may be used to define the no-fly zones. Inone embodiment, the task-specific no-fly zone (1016) may includeabstract geometries, including planes. In one embodiment, thetask-specific zone (1016) may dynamically change according to a detectedsurgical scene or task performed by the robot or the surgeon.

In one embodiment, a workspace display may be provided to depict theedges, boundaries (1013), and other virtual inputs (1014) as they areselected. In one embodiment, the workspace display may depict thegeneral volumetric no-fly zone (1015) and/or the task-specific no-flyzone (1016) once the boundary (1013) and/or edges (1014) selectionprocess has been completed. In one embodiment, the workspace display maybe connected with the controller of the robot, and the controller maysave and recall the volumetric no-fly zone (1015) and/or a task-specificno-fly zone (1016) when executing various operating modes.

In one embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D, a tool (1009) may beused to issue commands inside the workspace. For example, the cuttingtool (1009) may be used to define a planned incision line (1010) bytracing the cutting tool (1009) over tissue (1005) and along a desiredcutting path. The robot may then take into account additional sensoryinformation to adjust and to follow the incision line (1011) to cuttissue (1005), as shown in FIG. 10D. In one embodiment, the sensoryinformation may be obtained via optical, force and/or position sensorsof the robot. In one embodiment, a controller may be directly orindirectly attached to the tool (1009). The controller may receivesurgeon interaction inputs, including tracing performed via the tool(1009), which may be used to define the planned incision line (1010).

In one embodiment, the surgeon interaction inputs may include tracing ordrawing on the workspace with the tool (1009), where the tool (1009) maybe attached to the controller, and the tracing or drawing definesparameters of tissue cutting or tissue dissection to be performed by therobot. The robot may then perform the tissue cutting or tissuedissection in an automated manner, taking into account sensorinformation. In one embodiment, tissue joining, including tissuesuturing or clipping methods that may be defined using surgeoninteraction inputs. The surgeon interaction input may include selectingan area of workspace using the controller to indicate an area of tissueto be joined. The robot may then perform the tissue joining in anautomated manner, taking into account sensor information.

In one embodiment, a workspace display may be provided to depict theincision line (1010) being traced by the cutting tool (1009). In oneembodiment, the workspace display may be a LCD display screen or atouchscreen panel. In one embodiment, the workspace display may be animage projection that is projected directly on a patient or to asuitable location in the operating location. In one embodiment, theworkspace may include at least partially an endoscopic view.

By defining a planned incision line (1010), a cut may be performed bythe robot in an automated or semi-autonomous manner. In one embodiment,an automated or semi-autonomous cut may be desired in the event asurgeon is fatigued, or if high dexterity or repetition is desired forthe cut, for example. In one embodiment, the controller of the robot mayreceive the planned incision line (1010) and the sensory information inorder execute commands to direct the cutting tool (1009), via a robotarm, to properly cut the tissue (1005).

In one embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 10E and 10F, a robot may assist inthe grasping of tissue in a collaborative manner. The surgeon may use agrasper (1002) to hold tissue (1005) in place. The surgeon may thenissue a command, or signal to the robot, to define either a plannedposition (1004) or a planned force vector (1003). The robot may thenhold this position (1007) or constant force (1006), based on the plannedposition (1004) or planned force vector (1003), respectively. In oneembodiment, a force sensor (1001) may be provided to detect forcesasserted at a tool tip when the surgeon issues the command to define theplanned force vector (1003). In one embodiment, both a planned position(1004) and a planned force vector (1003) may be used. The combination ofposition and/or force information allows the robot to collaborate withthe surgeon and to accomplish tasks for which each is well-suited. Byallowing the robot to hold a position, the surgeon may be freed fromhaving to continually assert force to maintain the holding position.

In one embodiment as shown in FIG. 11, a robot (1100) with a tool port(1101) may be used to interface with and control a variety of surgicaltools (1102). The tool port (1101) of the robot (1100) may include oneor more mechanical and/or electrical contacts for transmitting power ordata. FIG. 12 shows different types of tools the robot may interfacewith. The tool may be a specialized tool (1200) meant for use inautonomous routines (e.g. a tool optimized for suturing in autonomousanastomosis), a version of a standard laparoscopic tool built (1201) tointerface with the robot (e.g. a motorized grasper or scalpel), or amanual laparoscopic tool (1202) attached to a universal tool adapter(1203) that is used to actuate the tool. The tool may have a range ofactuations and degree of freedoms, and does not necessarily have toutilize all mechanical or electrical contacts that may be available onthe robot.

To facilitate a collaborative hybrid surgical approach, a universal tooladapter may be mounted to the tool port of the robot that enables easytransition from manual to master-slave and autonomous procedures. Thetool adapter may be designed to accommodate any number of differentlaparoscopic hand tools, and provides a platform capable of mechanizingthe degrees of freedom and end effector actuation. In one embodiment,FIG. 1 illustrates a surgeon performing either manual or teleoperatedlaparoscopic surgery with a universal tool adapter (110). By placing thehand inside of the adapter (110), the surgeon can access the handle andarticulation rings of a manual tool while under intelligent support fromthe robotic arm (100). If mechanized control is needed, the surgeon mayremove their hands from the manual tool and connect the tool to the tooladapter. In one embodiment, controls located directly on the tooladapter may be provided to allow the surgeon to teleoperate the robotwhile still maintaining arm support. The universal tool adapter (110)may be equipped with force and torque sensors to provide feedback forthe teaching of no fly-zones, tool memory, and/or path planning with thecollaborative hybrid approach.

In one embodiment, FIGS. 13-15 show an exemplary universal adapter fortools (1300) that provide one degree of freedom for rotation and one foroperation, e.g. cutting, or clamping such as graspers, needle drivers,and scissors. A tool (1300) of this type may consist of a shaft withstandardized diameter, a rotating ring to rotate the shaft, a stationaryhandle, and a moving handle that activates an action at the shaft tip,i.e. clamping or scissor actuation. Size and position of the handles mayvary between different tools, so a universal adapter needs to be able tobe configured to adjust to the specific size and motorization needs ofthe tool. In one embodiment, the tools (1300) may include a manualsurgical tool and/or a robotic surgical tool. In one embodiment, thetools (1300) may include laparoscopic tools and/or an electrocauterytool. In one embodiment, the tools (1300) may include non-modularsurgical tools. In one embodiment, the tools (1300) may include modularsurgical tools.

In one embodiment, the tool (1300) may be inserted into the adapter(1301), by placing it into a revolver sleeve (1310), consisting of acylindrical sleeve (1311) made of two halves that clamp together, aspring clamp (1312) that engages a rotary feature of the tool (1300),and a thumb screw (1313). The cylindrical opening of the sleeve (1310)is designed to have a smaller diameter compared to the tool, to provideadequate clamping force on the tool. The revolver sleeve (1310) may beexchanged to adjust for the specific standardized diameter of the tool(1300). The revolver sleeve (1310) aligns the tool (1300) concentricallywith an axis of rotation of the revolver sleeve (1310). Before lockingthe tool (1300) in position with the thumb screw (1313), the springclamp (1312) pushes the tool axially forward until the shoulder of therotary feature of the tool rests against the end of the revolver sleeve(1310), setting the tool (1300) into a repeatable axial and rotationalposition.

In one embodiment, the adapter (1301) may comprise a stationary member(1314) and a moving member (1315) that rotates about a hinge point(1350). The moving member (1315) may contain an array of pin holes. Inone embodiment, the array of pin holes may include a plurality of rowsand columns of pin holes on the moving member (1315). By securing atleast one mounting pin onto the moving member (1315) via the pin holessuch that the pins are inside a moving handle of the tool (1300), thepins may engage the sides of the moving handle. In one embodiment, themoving member (1315) may be provided with at least two mounting pinssecured to the pin holes of the moving member (1315). The at least twopins may interact with an inside portion of the moving handle. In oneembodiment the at least two mounting pins may engage a movable portionof the tool (1300) while the stationary member (1314) may engage a fixedportion of the tool (1300). In one embodiment, the tool (1300) may be alaparoscopic tool.

By adjusting pin positions, the adapter (1301) can accommodate multipletool sizes and tool shapes. Once the tool (1300) is positioned into theadapter (1301), two motors (1316, 1317) may actuate the rotationaldegree of freedom and the other operation, e.g. cutting or clamping.Alternatively, the rotational degree of freedom may be implemented withthe robotic arm. In one embodiment, the adapter (1301) may include aflange (1302) to detachably attach the adapter (1301) to a robotic armof the present disclosure. In one embodiment, the adapter (1301) isconfigured to quickly and easily attach to or detach from the roboticarm. In one embodiment, at least one of the two motors (1316, 1317) maybe mounted to the stationary member (1314), the at least one of the twomotors (1316, 1317) being connectable with a rotational portion of thetool (1300) to drive the tool (1300).

In one embodiment, FIG. 16 shows an exemplary universal tool adapter(1500) for modular multi degree of freedom tools. FIG. 17 illustratesthe features of a modular tool (1400). Tools of this type may compriseof a shaft (1401) with a standardized diameter, a rotating ring (1402)to rotate the end effector, an articulation collar (1403) that controlsbending of the tool tip when rotated, a moving handle (1404) thatactuates the function of the end effector, i.e. grasping or cutting, anda quick connect interface (1405) to engage and disengage the endeffector from the handle. Because modular tools have similar endeffector geometry and quick connect interfaces, the universal tooladapter can accommodate a complete modular tool set. Additionally,multiple axes are provided to control for single and multi degree offreedom tools.

In one embodiment, the end effector (1406) may be disengaged from themodular handle (1407) of a modular tool (1400) by manipulating the quickconnect interface (1405) as shown in FIG. 18. A cap (1501) of theuniversal tool adapter (1500) may be removed to expose an articulationinterface (1502), where the modular end effector (1406) may be seatedinside of the universal tool adapter (1500). The articulation interface(1502) may include ridges (1503) that align with corresponding groovesof the articulation collar (1403) for tool orientation, and torquetransmission. Once seated, the modular end effector (1406) may besecured within the tool adapter (1500) by replacing and fastening thethreaded cap (1501). In one embodiment, the modular tool (1400) may besecured to the tool adapter (1500) via at least one of pins, springs, orthreaded portions. In one embodiment, the modular tool (1400) may be alaparoscopic tool.

In one embodiment, a quick connect button (1504) may be depressed oncethe modular end effector (1406) has been seated to engage a springloaded linear drive interface (1505) shown in FIGS. 19 and 20. Theuniversal tool adapter (1500) may include a drive interface (1505)actuatable to translate along an axial direction of the tool adapter(1500) in order to control a function of the end effector, ie. graspingand cutting.

In one embodiment, actuation of the modular end effector (1409) may beachieved by moving a translational stage that pushes actuation driveshaft (1408) of the modular end effector (1406) forward, opening thejaws of the modular end effector (1409). As the drive shaft is pushed,an internal spring is compressed putting pressure on the linear driveinterface (1505). When the push is reversed, the compressed spring isable to relax, returning the actuation drive shaft (1408) to a homestate and closing the jaws of the modular end effector (1409). Thisaction may be repeated for actuating the end effector of any modulartool.

In one embodiment, articulation of the modular end effector (1406) maybe achieved by rotating an articulation rotor (1506), which may thentransmit torque to an intermediate gear (1507) via a drive shaft (1508).The intermediate gear (1507) may engage and rotate the articulationinterface (1502) of the universal tool adapter (1500), and hencerotation of the articulation collar (1403) of the modular end effector(1406). As the articulation collar (1403) is rotated, an end effector(1409) may be bent between 0 and 90° as shown in FIG. 21.

In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 22, a multi axis motor pack (1600)may be mounted to the universal tool adapter (1500) to mechanize a tool.The motor pack (1600) may be mounted on a robotic positioning system viaa mounting flange (1601). In one embodiment, spring loaded pins (1602)may be provided on at least one rotational motor (1603) to engage anarticulation rotor (1506) on the universal tool adapter (1500). At leastone rotational motor (1603) may be rotated to transmit a rotationalforce to the articulation rotor (1506). At least one linear motor (1604)may be used to transmit axial force to the drive interface (1505).

In one embodiment, the multi axis motor pack (1600) may include aplurality of rotational motors (1603) and/or a plurality of linearmotors (1604). In one embodiment, the multi axis motor pack (1600) mayinclude plurality of rotational motors (1603) arranged symmetricallyabout a central axis of the motor pack (1600). In one embodiment, alinear motor (1604) may be disposed along the central axis of the motorpack (1600). By providing a multi axis motor pack (1600) with aplurality of rotational motors (1603) and/or a plurality of linearmotors (1604), the multi axis motor pack (1600) may be compatible withany number of universal tool adapters having multiple articulationrotors and/or multiple linear drive interfaces, which in turn may beused to drive modular end effectors with multiple degrees of freedom.

The specific embodiments described above have been shown by way ofexample in a surgical case and it should be understood that theseembodiments may be susceptible to various modifications and alternativeforms. It should be further understood that the claims are not intendedto be limited to the particular forms disclosed, but rather to cover allmodifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spiritand scope of this disclosure.

As used herein, the terms “comprises,” “comprising,” “including,” and“includes” are to be construed as being inclusive and open-ended.Specifically, when used in this document, the terms “comprises,”“comprising,” “including,” “includes,” and variations thereof, mean thespecified features, steps or components included in the describedfeatures of the present disclosure. These terms are not to beinterpreted to exclude the presence of other features, steps orcomponents.

It is understood that the hybrid control surgical robotic system of thepresent disclosure is not limited to the particular embodimentsdisclosed herein, but embraces much modified forms thereof that arewithin the scope of the following claims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A surgical robotic system, comprising: atleast one robot arm; at least one sensor to detect an input or anoperating condition of the at least one robot arm; a first controlcircuitry configured to detect surgeon interaction input, the firstcontrol circuitry being detachably attached to the at least one robotarm; and a second control circuitry configured to process the input orthe operating condition and/or the surgeon interaction input, and tooperate the at least one robot arm in a plurality of operating modes,wherein the second control circuitry executes commands to the at leastone robot arm to share a workspace and surgical elements.
 2. Thesurgical robotic system of claim 1, wherein the surgical elementsinclude at least one of a manual surgical tool, a robotic surgical tool,an electrocautery tool, and a display of the workspace.
 3. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 2, further comprising: a surgical tool adapter,wherein the manual surgical tool or the robotic surgical tool isattachable to and detachable from the surgical tool adapter to provideat least one degree of actuation for tool operation of the manualsurgical tool or the robotic surgical tool, and wherein the surgicaltool adapter is controllable via the at least one robot arm or by manualoperation.
 4. The surgical robotic system of claim 3, wherein the manualsurgical tool is a non-modular surgical tool, wherein the surgical tooladapter includes a stationary member and a movable member secured to thenon-modular surgical tool, and wherein the movable member comprises aplurality of pin holes and at least two mounting pins, the at least twomounting pins being rearrangeable on the plurality of pin holes toengage a movable portion of the non-modular surgical tool with themovable member.
 5. The surgical robotic system of claim 3, wherein themanual surgical tool or the robotic surgical tool is a modular surgicaltool, wherein the modular surgical tool is drivingly secured to thesurgical tool adapter via a linear drive interface, an articulationrotor, or a gear, and wherein the linear drive interface, thearticulation rotor, or the gear is driven by a rotational motor or alinear rotor interfaced with the surgical tool adapter.
 6. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 3, wherein the surgical tool adapter includes amotor pack having at least one rotational motor or linear motor, themotor pack being drivingly connected to the robotic surgical tool, andthe robotic surgical tool being detachably coupled to the tool adaptervia at least one of pins, springs, or threaded portions.
 7. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 2, wherein the display of the workspace includesat least partially an endoscopic view.
 8. The surgical robotic system ofclaim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a force sensor or a positionencoder coupled to the at least one robot arm, and wherein the forcesensor or the position encoder detects the surgeon interaction inputfrom the first control circuitry.
 9. The surgical robotic system ofclaim 8, wherein the second control circuitry generates a kinematicmodel of a surgeon based on the surgeon interaction input from the firstcontrol circuitry in a calibration step, and wherein the second controlcircuitry operates the at least one robot arm based on the kinematicmodel to provide dynamic support in order to reduce surgeon fatigue. 10.The surgical robotic system of claim 9, wherein the calibration stepincludes receiving surgeon interaction inputs from the first controlcircuitry based on one or more detected arm positions in the sharedworkspace by the at least one sensor and based on force sensed by the atleast one sensor to generate the kinematic model.
 11. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 9, wherein the at least one robot arm providesthe dynamic support as a dynamic force by asserting a counter force toan external force applied to the at least one robot arm, and wherein theexternal force includes at least a gravitational force applied by asurgical tool attached to the at least one robot arm.
 12. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operating modescomprises a fully automated mode and a partially automated mode, andwherein the second control circuitry operates the at least one robot armin the fully automated mode or the partially automated mode based on thesurgeon interaction input from the first control circuitry and/orsensory information for the at least one sensor.
 13. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 12, wherein the surgeon interaction input mayinclude movement or force sensed by the at least one sensor, wherein theat least one sensor includes a force sensor and a position sensor, andwherein the second control circuitry operates the at least one robot armto perform at least one of defining no-fly zones, tissue grasping,tissue cutting, tissue dissection, tissue joining, and tissue retractionbased on the surgeon interaction input.
 14. The surgical robotic systemof claim 13, wherein the surgeon interaction input defines a plannedposition or a force vector in the shared workspace for the at least onerobot arm to execute or maintain.
 15. The surgical robotic system ofclaim 13, wherein the surgeon interaction input defines at least oneno-fly zone, the at least one no-fly zone being a conventionalvolumetric zone or a task-specific zone having abstract geometriesincluding planes, and wherein the surgeon interaction input includes atrace of a boundary from the first control circuitry.
 16. The surgicalrobotic system of claim 13, wherein the surgeon interaction inputdefines the tissue cutting or the tissue dissection performed by the atleast one robot arm, and wherein the surgeon interaction input includesa trace or a drawing on the workspace from the first control circuitrywith a surgical tool attached.
 17. The surgical robotic system of claim13, wherein the surgeon interaction input defines the tissue joining,including tissue suturing or clipping methods, and wherein the surgeoninteraction input includes a trace or a selection of an area of theworkspace from the first control circuitry to indicate an area of tissueto be joined.
 18. The surgical robotic system of claim 13, wherein thesecond control circuitry executes a command to provide haptic feedback.19. The surgical robotic system of claim 12, wherein automatedoperations during the fully automated mode or during the partiallyautomated mode are interrupted or adjusted due to a subsequent surgeoninteraction input from the first control circuitry.